Smaller and Larger Repertories

Smaller and Larger Repertories — Structure, Evidence, and Philosophy of Scale

1. The Question of Size

The question of whether a repertory should be smaller or larger has been a topic of debate in homeopathy since its earliest compilations. Size can be measured in many ways — by the number of rubrics, the number of remedies, the depth of hierarchy, or the range of literature integrated. But the real issue is not how much is present; it is how coherently and faithfully the repertory represents verified experience.
A repertory is not judged by its magnitude, but by the proportion between its breadth and its truth.

2. What Makes a Repertory 'Smaller'

A smaller repertory may mean fewer rubrics, fewer remedies, or both. Historically, small repertories often reflect limited source material or a pedagogical intent — a condensed version of a greater work. In modern terms, we can define three paths toward smallness:
1. Linguistic reduction: merging synonymous rubrics into one unified expression.
2. Evidence reduction: filtering out speculative or unconfirmed remedy entries.
3. Hierarchical reduction: removing deeper subrubrics while retaining their remedy inheritance.
Such reduction can produce a repertory that is compact, clear, and didactically effective — a “core instrument” of clinical certainty.
Yet smallness can also be accidental: born of historical limitation or editorial immaturity. A repertory may seem tidy because it knows too little. Thus, simplicity must be distinguished from absence.

3. What Makes a Repertory 'Larger'

A large repertory, rightly conceived, is not an inflation of words but an expansion of verified content. It keeps the same linguistic skeleton — the same thermometer of terms — while allowing more remedies and more confirmed evidence to inhabit those rubrics.
A large repertory therefore grows vertically, not horizontally: vertically, by accumulating proof, cross-confirmation, and remedy grading; horizontally only when a genuinely new clinical idea or modality requires a new rubric.
Its greatness lies not in excess but in inclusiveness: every reliable observation has its place, and none is lost to redundancy.

4. Linguistic Discipline — The Heart of Both

Whether small or large, a repertory lives or dies by linguistic coherence. Without a controlled vocabulary, both forms fall apart: the small repertory fractures into inconsistent expressions of the same idea; the large repertory inflates into thousands of rubrics with near-identical meanings.
The linguistic thermometer principle — one clear expression per concept — preserves unity. Growth must add evidence, not variation.
A repertory can be enormous in remedies and still small in words; this is the perfection of coherence.

5. Remedy Spectrum — The Axis of Diversity

Size also depends on the number of remedies represented. A smaller repertory often limits itself to the classical polycrests, while a larger repertory integrates the full spectrum of known substances: plants, animals, minerals, nosodes, sarcodes, and new provings.
This diversity broadens the range of possible correspondences between patient and remedy, but also demands stronger editorial discipline to verify every inclusion. The repertory should never outgrow its evidence.
Large by number alone is confusion; large by confirmed number is knowledge.

6. Structural Depth — The Architecture of Precision

Every repertory organizes its data hierarchically: main rubrics → sub-rubrics → sub-sub-rubrics, each increasing specificity. Pruning the hierarchy — reducing excessive depth — can simplify navigation and shorten repertorization time.
When remedy inheritance is ensured (as in the Complete Repertory 2026), the elimination of deeper rubrics does not destroy data; it only removes structural clutter. A smaller repertory by depth remains fully representative of the duplicate therapeutic content.
Depth, therefore, should be proportional to necessity: retain what carries clinical weight, remove what fragments understanding.

7. The Triangular Relationship: Patient – Practitioner – Repertory

Even the most sophisticated repertory remains only a reflection of reality. Between them stands the practitioner, the living interpreter.
A flawless repertory cannot correct an erroneous rubric choice. It can only magnify the practitioner’s accuracy or his misunderstanding. Thus, the larger and more complex the repertory, the greater the responsibility of interpretation.
The repertory provides structure; the practitioner provides sense.

8. Comparative Qualities

A smaller repertory tends to be concentrated, while a larger one is broad. Remedy diversity, density per rubric, hierarchy, and evidence certainty differ accordingly. A well-edited, extensive repertory unites comprehensiveness with coherence.

9. The Practitioner’s Choice

For the beginner, a smaller repertory offers focus and a manageable vocabulary. For the mature clinician, an extensive repertory opens the whole horizon of possibilities. The ideal extensive repertory preserves the order of a small one: vast in data, but ruled by a clear and constant language. It becomes a landscape of coherence, not a labyrinth of words.

10. The Philosophical Dimension

The evolution from small to large repertories mirrors the evolution of scientific understanding: from the simplicity of first discovery to the complexity of total integration. Yet actual progress in both science and art comes when the expansion of knowledge does not destroy its clarity.
The larger repertory must remain a vessel of simplicity — an ordered cosmos, not a crowded universe. When completeness and coherence are united, the repertory ceases to be a catalogue. It becomes a form of clinical reason: a structure through which the practitioner sees not just symptoms, but meaning.

11. The Final Understanding

A smaller repertory distills; it teaches the essence. A larger repertory integrates; it preserves the total field of human experience. The practitioner’s intelligence gives life to both.
A small repertory may express truth; an extensive repertory, when well made, contains more of the truth in the exact words. The art lies in building vastness without losing unity, so that the repertory remains what it was always meant to be — the ordered memory of healing itself.

Roger van Zandvoort